torrent and other P2P
in [Computers]
|
Prev: How do I turn my mouse off?
Next: Centrelink error...
From: annily on 14 Apr 2010 00:21 Sylvia Else wrote: > On 14/04/2010 12:02 PM, annily wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 13/04/2010 9:51 PM, terryc wrote: >>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:46:50 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/04/2010 10:16 AM, Epsilon wrote: >>>>>> Craig wrote: >>>>>>> If your IP address is visible to the world and it can be shown that >>>>>>> your are seeding the file you are downloading, then why do people >>>>>>> use >>>>>>> such technologies? Why aren't they afraid of being sued by the >>>>>>> copyright holders? >>>>>> >>>>>> Several reasons. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. The downloader is basically stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. The downloader doesn't have a cracker, so isn't worth suing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> And it's questionable how much could be recovered anyway. The loss >>>>> to a >>>>> copyright holder of a single breach of copyright on a typical movie is >>>>> probably in the region of $15 at the very most. If they start legal >>>>> proceedings, >>>> >>>> And they won't. What the "great brains trust" that exists here has >>>> failed >>>> to comprehend is the power of logging. Log everything that they can, >>>> log >>>> over a few years and hey bingo, 10 titles, 100 titles, 1,000 titles and >>>> you have a figure worth pursuing them over. >>> >>> Until they've got to the point of starting litigation in court, >>> they're not in a position to force the ISP to reveal the identity of >>> the downloader. With few people being on fixed IP addresses, a log >>> that indicates that a particular IP address has downloaded multiple >>> movies is not much of a basis for starting litigation, because it >>> could prove that there are multiple infringers, each of whom could >>> only be sued for $15. >>> >>> Conversely, the person who's downloaded 100 movies may have done so >>> from 100 different IP addresses, and not been picked up as a likely >>> target for litigation. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> How do they verify what you have downloaded anyway? Surely they can't >> just go by a file name, and if the content is encrypted, how do they >> prove it's their copyright content? >> > > Certainly the filename's no use beyond identifying IP addresses of > interest. If I remember rightly, the case against iiNet (which was > lost!) was based on receipt of parts of specific content from iiNet > customers, with said content being matched against the copyright owner's > content. The conclusion is then reached, on balance of probability, that > the iiNet customer peer will also upload the other parts of the content, > such that a substantial part is uploaded, and therefore copied. > > The content can't be encrypted in that situation, or if it is, the > receiving torrent client has to be able to decrypt it. > > Sylvia. > > So for encrypted content, the copyright holders would join the torrent and decrypt the content, then convince the court that the alleged perpetrator received (and uploaded at least part of) the same content. Fair enough. -- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
From: terryc on 14 Apr 2010 06:38 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:31:13 +1000, Rod Speed wrote: > They are completely irrelevant when the NSW small claims system doesnt > award costs against the losting party, fool. Those incessant strenuos denials are so convincing Roddles. > No surprise that you are completely unemployable. An admission there Roddles?
From: Rod Speed on 14 Apr 2010 13:41 terryc wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> They are completely irrelevant when the NSW small claims >> system doesnt award costs against the losing party, fool. > Those incessant strenuos denials are so convincing Roddles. Pity about http://www.artslaw.com.au/LegalInformation/DebtRecovery/DebtRecoveryNSW.asp Generally, the successful party is not entitled to claim their legal costs from the other party And yes, that is specific to NSW, fool. No surprise that you are completely unemployable.
From: annily on 14 Apr 2010 20:36 Andy wrote: > annily wrote: > >> So for encrypted content, the copyright holders would join the torrent >> and decrypt the content, then convince the court that the alleged >> perpetrator received (and uploaded at least part of) the same content. >> Fair enough. > > By joining the torrent 'swarm' wouldn't they then also be guilty of > facilitating the claimed copyright infringement? :-) > Obviously not, because the content belongs to them. They can do what they like with it. -- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
From: annily on 14 Apr 2010 20:46
annily wrote: > Andy wrote: >> annily wrote: >> >>> So for encrypted content, the copyright holders would join the >>> torrent and decrypt the content, then convince the court that the >>> alleged perpetrator received (and uploaded at least part of) the same >>> content. Fair enough. >> >> By joining the torrent 'swarm' wouldn't they then also be guilty of >> facilitating the claimed copyright infringement? :-) >> > > Obviously not, because the content belongs to them. They can do what > they like with it. > What I should have said was that they may be facilitating the copyright infringement, but they are entitled to do that, because they own the content, so they can do what they like with it. -- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. |